But his backbench colleagues have gone further – Tory MP Nick Boles tweeted that Sir Christopher was a politician “whose knuckles dragged along the ground”.

And George Freeman, who used to lead Theresa May’s policy unit, said the move was “an affront to parliamentary democracy”.

Minister for Women Victoria Atkins said the government will allocate time for the bill in Parliament to ensure it does not get pushed down the list of private members’ bills.

Sir Christopher has yet to speak out about his intervention, but upskirting victim Gina Martin – who started the campaign for the new law – said he told her he objected “on principle” because it “wasn’t debated”.

She told the BBC he said he “wasn’t really sure” what upskirting was. “I said, ‘well, I can help you with that’,” Ms Martin added.

Dawn Butler, Labour’s shadow minister for women and equalities, said it was “absolutely disgusting” that the bill had been blocked.

Justice minister Lucy Frazer said the government was “committed to making sure upskirting becomes a criminal offence and have every expectation that this will happen”.

So why did Sir Christopher object?

By Mark D’Arcy, BBC parliamentary correspondent

Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statute book by a few MPs on a poorly-attended Friday sitting.

And – after all – this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.

So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.

Ms Martin said she remained “hopeful” and had arranged a meeting to discuss it with Sir Christopher.